GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Sep 2018, 02:02

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1054
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Dec 2012, 03:17
experts, pls help.

pls, explain what do you do before you look at the answer choices and explain the reasoning. Thank you. this is terribly hard question.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 45
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Dec 2012, 03:15
2
notahug wrote:
Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close
within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store
that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the
opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson’s.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population
will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.


I'm not an expert but this is my reasoning: the argument says that since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s. The argument then concludes that the vacancy (of the places where the discount stores that closed because of the competition with SpendLess discount department) will not be for long: new (discount - this is the conclusion hint) store will open at those vacancies. It is important that we know the conclusion "those locations will not stay vacant for long".

Note that when we read this, we will see that gap between the 2 statements: there is no connection between them. The first premise talks about discount stores. The second premise talks about the nondiscount stores. At the abstract level, the argument tries to conclude that the phenomenon that happens for the nondiscount stores will also happen for the similar matter of discount stores. This is the gap in the reasoning as the argument tries to use analogy in a loose way: things that happen in one situation won't necessarily in another.

Answer B attack that hole: it points out the difference between the 2 situations: discount stores v.s. nondiscount stores. It says that since the ones that fill up the spots left by (presumably but wrong - nondiscount) stores are indeed discount stores. It means that the spots left by the discount stores (that can't compete with the discount store SpendLess) won't be necessarily filled up (by the discount stores).

This one is subtle and definitely takes more than 2 minutes for me. To solve this, I think you need to look at a higher, abstract level instead of the details. Also, if you think of other ways of weakening an argument such as find another cause, or weaking the causal relationship, you will be stucked because the 2 premise has no connection (which is a good sign that you should step back and look at the whole thing as a whole).
VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1054
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2013, 02:34
1
very hard question
why it is hard because what we prethink before we read answer choices is different from what is in correct answer .

premise: the reopening of nondiscount happens after 5 years.
conclusion: there will be reopening of discount.

prethink:
- assumption: situation is similar in both non discount and discount store
- weakener: must show that the situation is different.

go to answer choices

there is no match which say about different situation.

reread b, we see that b is close the what we prethink.

why this question is hard?
because what we prethink is different from the correct answer .
it take rather long time to read and understand the argument and it take rather long time to reread the answer choice. This question is rather time consuming.

so, hard reasoning and long time makes this question very hard. I do not think that in the test room , we are calm enough to do this question in 2 minutes. gmat presents question which look simple but hard.

pls comment/confirm my posting.members, experts.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2013
Posts: 2
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2013, 22:11
2
every good, I reread the question and understand it thoroughly. Thanks and kudo for you.
catennacio wrote:
notahug wrote:
Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close
within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store
that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the
opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson’s.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population
will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.


I'm not an expert but this is my reasoning: the argument says that since the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson’s. The argument then concludes that the vacancy (of the places where the discount stores that closed because of the competition with SpendLess discount department) will not be for long: new (discount - this is the conclusion hint) store will open at those vacancies. It is important that we know the conclusion "those locations will not stay vacant for long".

Note that when we read this, we will see that gap between the 2 statements: there is no connection between them. The first premise talks about discount stores. The second premise talks about the nondiscount stores. At the abstract level, the argument tries to conclude that the phenomenon that happens for the nondiscount stores will also happen for the similar matter of discount stores. This is the gap in the reasoning as the argument tries to use analogy in a loose way: things that happen in one situation won't necessarily in another.

Answer B attack that hole: it points out the difference between the 2 situations: discount stores v.s. nondiscount stores. It says that since the ones that fill up the spots left by (presumably but wrong - nondiscount) stores are indeed discount stores. It means that the spots left by the discount stores (that can't compete with the discount store SpendLess) won't be necessarily filled up (by the discount stores).

This one is subtle and definitely takes more than 2 minutes for me. To solve this, I think you need to look at a higher, abstract level instead of the details. Also, if you think of other ways of weakening an argument such as find another cause, or weaking the causal relationship, you will be stucked because the 2 premise has no connection (which is a good sign that you should step back and look at the whole thing as a whole).
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1064
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 May 2013, 01:36
4
B is correct.

Tough question. This is my reasoning.

FACTS OF NON-DISCOUNT STORES
- All nondiscount store closed because of competition from a non-discount store (Colson).
- After that there a new store has opened at the location of closed non-discount stores.

FACTS OF DISCOUNT STORES.
- All discount stores in Goreville are expected to closed because of competition from a discount store (SpendLess).

CONCLUSION: a new store will open at the locations of closed discount stores.

Assumption: The fact of nondiscount stores cases is also true for discount stores cases.

The conclusion will be weakened if discount stores and nondiscount stores do not follow the same pattern.

B correctly states that the stores that have opened since Colson’s opened are discount stores, NOT non-discount stores ==> we cannot use the fact of nondiscount stores to make a conclusion for discount stores.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 34
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, International Business
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2013, 08:54
I have noticed a tie between B and E

Just a quick analysis of the argument

Argument says; Discount Stores expected to close, but wont be closed for long

Reason: when Calson (non discount opened).....shops closed but later vacant spaces occupied by new shops

Take away: Calson -> non discount : Other shops reopened

Question: what type of shops and why, obviously different from Calson and exploiting a market nitche.

Now: Spendless (discount ) will open, But according to previous trend, vacated shop areas will reopen...will this be true?

B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores. The previous nitch which facilited for reopening no longer exist, so weaken the argument by putting a hole in the previous cycle

E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s. : Then the shops should not even closed in the first place both during the opening of Colson and expected opening of spendless - Wrong answer because it does nothing to the above argument

So Answer B.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Got Bling! Joined Phd Finance at IIML
Affiliations: IIMB, advantages.us, IIML
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 85
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: iim-bangalore - Class of 1994
GMAT 1: 750 Q59 V43
GPA: 3.12
WE: Research (Investment Banking)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2013, 23:13
sondenso wrote:
gmat blows wrote:
notahug wrote:
Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close
within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store
that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the
opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson’s.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

I think it is E. The argument that the discount stores are expected to close within 5 years is based on what happened to the non dscount stores having to compete with Colson's. HOwever, if those discount stores, in question, sell things that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's they will probably not close since they are not directly competing against them anymore. Basically, this argument becomes flawed with the information stated in E since the previous scenario, with the non discount store can not be translated to the new scenario, since they are not slightly different.

if the stem had also said that the non discount stores closed, even though they sold different things, then E would not weaken the argument.


Mark incomplete and come back for a second round but question will not improve

Also Discount store is opening up but info relates to a non discount store that opened earlier.


A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened. Colsons opned 5 years ago . Spendless will take customers from Colsons - irrelevant

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores. yes material, coud not exit choice however because it does not complete the argument to strengthen or weaken it after al that is what he is addressing saying last time we had discount stores come u when Colsons was opened. But is the choice if already been there what now ( not elegant)

C>> At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had.


C. could be irrelevant, lets look at the other choices - after all at least it could point to over capacity without any population argument



I went with C after much deliberation why B did not make the cut.


D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population
will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

D and E support argument
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Posts: 56
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Nov 2013, 00:47
can someone please explain how B can be the answer.Since Colson's has been used just as an e.g to explain the situation that new stores opened up in place of the closed stores so the same will happen in the case of spendless stores, so what a difference it makes whether it was a discount store that opened up at colson's time or not?
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1064
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Nov 2013, 03:19
22
10
veenu08 wrote:
can someone please explain how B can be the answer.Since Colson's has been used just as an e.g to explain the situation that new stores opened up in place of the closed stores so the same will happen in the case of spendless stores, so what a difference it makes whether it was a discount store that opened up at colson's time or not?


Hello veenu08.

This question is definitely good to practice. The way GMAC writes CR questions is superb :) Now let see why B weakens the conclusion.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact: The discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a
result of competition from a Spend Less discount department store that just opened,
Conclusion: those locations will not stay vacant for long.

Reason to support conclusion: In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson's.

ANALYZE OPTION B:

The logic of the argument is: New Discount store opened ==> Current Discount store will be closed ==> But there will be another Discount stores opened in the locations of closed stores.
The reason to back up: Colson, a NON-discount store opened ==> Current NON-discount stores will be closed ==> But there was a NEW store opened in the location of closed Non-discount stores.

STOP. what kind of "NEW store"? :?:

The argument is WEAK is because it uses PARALLEL reasoning improperly. The reasoning is true if the NEW store has the same nature as the closed NON-discount stored. If the NEW opened store is NOT non-discount stores ==> The reasoning/parallel reasoning is NOT valid.

Option B: Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores
B says exactly the same ==> B weakens the argument.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 173
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GMAT 1: 590 Q40 V30
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
WE: Project Management (Entertainment and Sports)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2014, 01:10
1
gaurav2k101 wrote:
can anyone explain me the meaning of the passage
than only it will be clear that what will weaken it


Basically the shopping district is expected to increasingly close its stores because of the upcoming opening of Spendless, a discount store, which will steal their business. The author is supporting his point ("those locations will not stay vacant for long") paralleling an akin situation: When Colson's, a non discount, had opened new stores opened in turn.

There's an evident flaw in this reasoning, stores closed down as a result of Colson's opening; one viable way to regain a slice of the market in the area is to open cheaper stores. If Spendless is already a discount store, opening few more discount stores in the area would be useless.

I hope it helps.
_________________

learn the rules of the game, then play better than anyone else.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2014
Posts: 18
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (PGPX)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Aug 2014, 02:46
Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close
within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store
that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the
opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson’s.
Concluson: The shops will not be empty.
Assumption is loud and clear. The trend continues in future also. The key difference is Colson is=non discounted store, whereas Spend less- discounted store.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened. - OFS as i'm bothered about only whether stores will be filled up or not.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

Yes, it is the answer. Previously colson is a non-discounted store. So discounted shops took place of previous ones. However, this time Spend=less is discounted shop. Thus new shops can't take their place. ( Unless some people plan to give goods for free :) )

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had.-- OFS . I am not into operations wants to see only if stores will be open or not:)

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population
will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.
OFS
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 159
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2014, 09:18
Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close
within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store
that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the
opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson’s.


Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had.

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population
will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

The main point here is that argument is saying that the stores that will be close, other store will be open at their place. It is not saying only that stores will be closed.
Choice E says that tose stores will never close. So B is Answer
_________________

Consider +1 Kudos Please :)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Posts: 9
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2014, 05:13
sagarsabnis wrote:
Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a
result of competition from a Spend Less discount department store that just opened, those locations will not
stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new
store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson's.



Can anyone explain, I can't understand the last 3 lines. As far as I understand, discount stores in a certain place are expected to close as they can't compete with another discount store "SpendLess". However, that place will not be vacant. What happened next?
My problem.
1. I can't understand the whole timeline of events
2. Are those new stores "discount" or "nondiscount"?
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 550
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Feb 2015, 05:32
The key point of the argument is -> the argument conludes that locations won't stay vacant taking the the example of Colson into account.

A. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened --> irrelevant. We are looking for a point wich weakens the pattern.

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores --> CORRECT. Reasoning: Colson (non discount) made it's competitors close, Discount stores came in place of them; Now we have SpendLess - because of which all discount stores in the city will close - But non discount stores won't take there place because of Colson

C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had --> Strengthens the argument

D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville’s population
will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades color=#ff0000]--> Strengthens the argument. More people - more demand more stores[/color]

E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s --> This makes them more likely not to close, we are interesting wether new stores come up in place of the closed ones
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 84
Schools: Haas '16, AGSM '16
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Mar 2015, 04:53
Choice B

Type : Weaken

Conclusion: Closed store will not stay vacant long.

Assumption: new store will have features that will draw customers to the shopping district. Base on the given example, these feature would relate to price.

Break the assumption: there are not any market segment that new store could operate there business on.

Hence choice B is a correct answer
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Posts: 1
Concentration: Marketing, General Management
GPA: 3.1
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2015, 09:40
1
shpnoraj wrote:
sagarsabnis wrote:
Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a
result of competition from a Spend Less discount department store that just opened, those locations will not
stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new
store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson's.



Can anyone explain, I can't understand the last 3 lines. As far as I understand, discount stores in a certain place are expected to close as they can't compete with another discount store "SpendLess". However, that place will not be vacant. What happened next?
My problem.
1. I can't understand the whole timeline of events
2. Are those new stores "discount" or "nondiscount"?


If you want to STRENGTHEN the argument then the stores should be NON-DISCOUNT.
If you want to WEAKEN the argument, then the stores should be DISCOUNT.
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2692
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2015, 16:54
1
I believe all the answer choices except B discuss smth that have no influence on the conclusion of the argument.
clearly, to weaken the conclusion, we need some information that the stores that closed where C opened were non-discount or that the new stores opened nearby C - are offering discounts..
bu showing the 2 situations, we can deduct that it will not be the same with SL!

(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the Spend Less
store opened.
this does not undermine the conclusion that the number of stores will increase...

(8) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been
discount stores.
looks good..as what we believed we need..

(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
completely irrelevant.

(D) Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville's population will grow at a faster rate
than it has for the past several decades.
irrelevant.

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either
SpendLess or Colson's.
what kind of merchandise they sell - not interesting!

B is the best.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 29
GMAT 1: 540 Q41 V23
GMAT 2: 640 Q49 V27
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2016, 19:01
Thanks for the solution. It was tricky.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2015
Posts: 23
GPA: 3.3
Reviews Badge
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Feb 2016, 05:18
Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson's.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.

(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.

(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.

(D) Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville's population will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jul 2014
Posts: 94
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Feb 2016, 10:42
6
Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a
result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not
stay vacant for long
.
In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new
store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson's.

Conclusion here is that the closed stores' position will not be vacant
To weaken , we must find an option that says , Yes ! those places are going to stay vacant. No new stores are going to open there

As I have gone through the CR Bible , they talk about a technique - find the connectors.Connectors are those answer choices that connect important words in the question stem.
For this question, this technique is very helpful
What are the important words we see in the argument that is not properly connected?
Discount store and non discount store. Authors is inferring something about the discount stores by pulling out an example of a non discount store. So these two needs to be connected.

Now if we look at the answer choices they are all seems out of scope. None of them really weakens the conclusion.
But ! the Option (B) talks something about discount stores and mentions colson's. and Colson's by question we know a non discount store.
So yes , here is a connection building.
Now ! lets think a little more. Since the opening of Colson's , all the new stores that opened in place of unfortunate closed stores are discount stores.
Ans question says all the discount stores are in danger because of a new discount store. That means , this new danger is going to wipe out the existing discount stores as well as the newly opened stores. Had such thing happened , there could be a chance that a big number of vacant spots get created, and they may not get filled at all . Hence the conclusion is weakened . Marginally !
_________________

The Mind ~ Muscle Connection
My GMAT Journey is Complete.Going to start the MBA in Information Management from 2016
Good Luck everyone.

Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping &nbs [#permalink] 12 Feb 2016, 10:42

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 72 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.